Did the US save Europe in WW2? (2 Viewers)

[syscom3]

.....I never stated that the BPF was as big as the U.S Pacific Fleet; I recognise that it was a fraction of the size. I was making it clear to your blind mind that the British had a presence in the Pacific and aided the U.S there. As much as you might not appreciate it, I'm sure a lot of American soldiers and sailors appreciated a British presence in the Pacific.

You contributed nothing except for a short time in spring 1943 when a carrier was wesnt to help the USN while the Enterprise was being repaired. No combat was done.

As for your contribution in 1945? The Aussies contributed far more when it counted, back in 1942-1944. Face it, the US deployed multiple task groups larger than the whole of your effort.

A European war without the U.S would have seen Britain in Italy and the Soviet Union on the Rhine (most likely scenario). If that was the case Western Europe would be hoping that the Soviet Union didn't continue; like the Western Allies did in real life.

Thats quite possible. But the same problems the allies had in Italy would crop up against the Commonwealth troops, and thats the terrain gave the advantage to the defender. And this time without the vast ammount of US material, you would be stuck in the southern part till the war ended.

I'm sure everyone is aware what would have happened if the Soviet Union had continued in 1945 and smashed their way through Western lines; no one was going to stop it in a hurry. And personally I believe that Stalin would have stopped at Germany - the war had a large effect on him and the nation.

Yes. But I suspect he would have looked at the Rhur as a great prize to be taken to help rebuild. Thats why I said he would stop at the Rheine.

On the industrial point, stop comparing the British Commonwealth in 1944 to the U.S in 1944 - that's a mute point. It would be British Commonwealth after gearing up against Germany, which would have the largest industry?

The Commonwealth didnt have the industrial facilities to match the US. Aside from some mills, foundries and factories in Canada, they didnt exist and would have to be built from the ground up. And that takes material and resources away from the fight on hand.

You seem to be completely lacking of any clue; there's no side-shows in war. All points are pressure for the enemies resources and forces, in a war of attrition these "side-shows" are important to whittle away at the enemy. If these areas were unimportant then the Allies would not have made attempts on them, nor would the Axis.

The wars are fought and won by the strategic points of pressure. Peripheries mean nothing in the scheme of things except for the men who fight in them. The fact that few resources are commited to them shows that the generals and admirals know their strategic worth.

The Aleutions were a side show. The CBI was a side show. NG and Rabaul was a side show after 1944. The Italian campaign was a side show after the landings in France.

You're boring, and the fact that you stated a loss of 275,000 men had no affect on the German war effort says it all ... do you know how many were lost at Stalingrad, sys, that turning point in the war? 300,000, a simple 25,000 more, did that not have an effect on the German war effort?

And when did the Germans collapse after loosing those men? 2 and 1/2 years later.

And are you forgetting that the U-Boat menace was tying up far more men in the RN than was lost at those two battles? All those sailors hunting down a few dozen U-boats were not on the ground trying to take ground into germany, were they?

 

[syscom3]

....All of those soldiers fighting in the CBI and other locations in the Pacific were holding up Japanese troops that Japan could have used in other locations against the US.....

And just where were those soldiers going to go, and how were they going to be supplied when the IJN could barely supply what was already there?

And how are those troops going to be supplied when the USAF/USN cuts the lines of supply?

And then what value will they have when they have been bypassed and are thousands of miles from the front?

Dont give the Japanese too much credit for their logistical capabilities, because it was poor from the start.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

....All of those soldiers fighting in the CBI and other locations in the Pacific were holding up Japanese troops that Japan could have used in other locations against the US.....

And just where were those soldiers going to go, and how were they going to be supplied when the IJN could barely supply what was already there?

And how are those troops going to be supplied when the USAF/USN cuts the lines of supply?

And then what value will they have when they have been bypassed and are thousands of miles from the front?

Dont give the Japanese too much credit for their logistical capabilities, because it was poor from the start.

That was not the point of my post syscom. The point of my post was that British troops were fighting and dieing in the CBI, N. Africa, and many other places and the way you discredit them is a great dishonor for the blood they spilled.

I agree with you that the war could not be won without the US.

I also believe that the US could not have done it without her Allies.

So basically I agree for the most part what you are saying but why dont you try not to offend the people of the nations that fought with the US and not discredit and dishonor the military men and women of the allies who fought in WW2 and spilled there blood as well.

Whether that is your intention or not, you are doing a damn good job of it.

WW2 was fought all over the world sys and it was fought by many other than just the US.

Just an nice list for you here of casualites by nation that were allied with the US or fighting the same enemies:

Austrailia: 40,100
Belgium: 12,100
Brazil: 2,000
Burma: 272,000
Canada: 45,300
China: 3,800,000
Czechoslovakia: 25,000
Denmark: 2,100
Ethiopia: 5,000
France: 212,000
Greece: 20,000
India: 87,000
Mongolia: 300
Netherlands: 7,900
Newfoundland: 1,000
New Zealand: 11,900
Norway: 3,000
Philippines: 57,000
Poland: 160,000
South Africa: 11,900
Soviet Union: 10,700,000
United Kingdom: 382,600


Again syscom dont dishonor or discredit those millions that gave there lives fighting for the same cause...

 

[Hunter368]

Thanks Chris that is what I have been trying to tell him for 3 days.....but he does not get it. Pisses me off.

Above all we here respect men and woman who have served in the military.....he is disrespecting those who have died in WW2 that did not serve in the US military.

Even if you don't see it that way Syscom.....isn't it enough that you respect our opinion when we tell you are? Show some respect man.

 

[syscom3]

Again syscom dont dishonor or discredit those millions that gave there lives fighting for the same cause...

I never did dishonor them.

I made the correct observation that you can fight courageously, but that doesnt mean the battle or campaign has strategic value.

I also believe that the US could not have done it without her Allies

The allies won the war because of extensive US military support. We couldnt have done it without our allies in Europe, but ultimatly as things panned out in the Pacific, we won it single handidly.

The ANZAC forces helped hold held the line in 1942, but it was a USA/USN show right after that.

Once the USN began its steamroller across the Pacific in Nov 1943, Anything done in NG and Rabaul was irrelevant.

And nothing the Brits did in CBI changed the equation one iota.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The allies won the war because of extensive US military support. We couldnt have done it without our allies in Europe, but ultimatly as things panned out in the Pacific, we won it single handidly.

While the US bore the brunt and yes you can say they pretty much won it all there were still British and ANZAC forces dieing in the Pacific. That was still part of the war in the Pacific.

I dont understand why you can realize that.

Good night Syscom, I have better things to do than try and understand how your mind works.

Once the USN began its steamroller across the Pacific in Nov 1943, Anything done in NG and Rabaul was irrelevant.

And nothing the Brits did in CBI changed the equation one iota.

Tell that to the families of the soldiers that died. They were still fighting for the same cause.

 

[Hunter368]

He knows what we are saying Chris he just refuses to admit it or that he made a mistake. Really have we ever heard Syscom admit he made a mistake or say sorry for something? Then does that mean Syscom is perfect? Hell no to both! He is being a @sshole and he knows it but his pride will not let him say sorry or back off.

 

[syscom3]

He knows what we are saying Chris he just refuses to admit it or that he made a mistake. Really have we ever heard Syscom admit he made a mistake or say sorry for something? Then does that mean Syscom is perfect? Hell no to both! He is being a @sshole and he knows it but his pride will not let him say sorry or back off.

I have plenty of times.

I've admitted the Lancaster was the better bomber of WW2 compared to the B17 and B24.

I've admitted that the German Army was generally better than the allies.

I've pulled or edited posts that were incorrect.

How about you?

 

[Gnomey]

But you haven't admitted it here. You are saying the US could of won the war by itself in Europe and in the Far East. Essential what you are saying is my Great Uncle (who was KIA in Burma during the war) died for nothing - you trying saying that to my grandmother bet you wouldn't have the balls. The war was a group effort all over the world by all of the Allies. The US provided the manufacturing power, the Russians the man power and the British and the Commonwealth the bases from which to strike from and much of the technical know how. I would like to of seen the US take on the Japanese, the Italians and the Germans without the Russian manpower and the British and Commonwealth bases from which to strike from - it would be neigh on impossible and yes whilst bridgeheads could be made here and there even the combined manufacturing power of the United States wouldn't be able to keep up with the demands for supplies, ships, tanks, aircraft and most importantly men that such a campaign would entail. The US needed its Allies almost as much as we needed the US.

 

[drgondog]

Chris, Plan_D, Udet, Hunter, Syscom -

I have generally thought of the ultimate victory over the Axis by the Allies include very important milestones in which the flow of momentum in the war was reversed.. among those in my mind include Battle of Britain, Midway, El Alameiin, Guadalcanal and Stalingrad plus the Battle of the Atlantic.

My question earlier was "would Great Britain' defeat the German U-Boat campaign, or blunt it sufficiently to permit the necessary flow of resources to and from the British Isles as required to continue the war and keep pressure on Germany from two sides?

I respect all of your opinions on this subject - to me it currently is the elephant that sits in the corner of the room relative to fate of Europe.

This question is posed on the basis of US staying strictly neutral (i.e FDR does not win in 1940) with no Lend Lease or other support... I suppose it permits Japan to attack Britain and France in Pacific and be smart enough to 'respect' US neutrality..

What are your thoughts?

Regards,

Bill

 

[Hunter368]

I have plenty of times.

I've admitted the Lancaster was the better bomber of WW2 compared to the B17 and B24.

I've admitted that the German Army was generally better than the allies.

I've pulled or edited posts that were incorrect.

How about you?

You have 6450 posts and you are saying you have made a few mistakes only? Common Syscom relax a little on your pride man. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong and if I insult anyone by accident I admit to it and say sorry for it......hell I had a huge arguement with the entire Mod team in including Dan that lasted for 2-3 days and like 12 pages of posts.......I admitted I was wrong after it all. I swallowed my pride when I saw I was wrong.

You purposely made this thread as an insult to everyone not from USA to try and boost you own national pride......you alienated everyone from UK and Commonwealth with your insulting comments.

Syscom you are a very smart knowledgeable person ( I have said that several times before) about WW2 but you post in such a arrogant way that it pisses people off. Just back off a little and people would not have such a problem with you. We all like to debate but you take it too far, you get to the point where it is insulting. I am not talking about saying simple school yard insults, you get far more personal.....you demean a person's heritage, back grounds and country. Thats to far IMO.

Not sure maybe you just lack people skills in your life ......not sure but you lack tact thats for sure.

I am getting tired of this BS, you know how I feel, Chris feels, Gnomey feels, PlanD feels........there is four long long term members who are insulted by your comments alone.....I am sure there are others who have said nothing (or that I have not listed). I would think you would have enough respect for us by now to listen to what we are saying even if you don't understand it or agree with it.

Do what you want with that information.....I am done bitching.

 

[Airborne]

Well speaking from an Australian perspective, Japan would have ultimately devoured Australia. Japan did not have a very good record as to the treatment of countries it occupied. One only has to read about how they treated the peoples of Singapore, China and all the others to see how they would have behaved with our white European society.
Our people would have been enslaved, tortured and murdered like our POWs were who fell into their merciless hands.
Australia had a very narrow escape and we owe modern Australia today to mainly the US Navy and the destruction of the Japanese fleet.

Britain could not help us. They could hardly help themselves with what they had on their plate in Europe and with the Battle of the Atlantic. Britain couldn't even hold Singapore.
Australia who sent such a massive committment to aid Britain in the 1st World War got one hell of a shock at just how let down we were in our hour of need.

After the war Australia lent towards the US and away from Britain for a big friend in a hostile world. We honoured the Anzus treaty by actively participating in any war that the US got itself into.
The actual wording of that treaty says that we will come to the aid of each other if attacked, but that was stretched by us to include any conflict, as a way of showing Australia's gratitude for the help we received from America that we owed our very existance to.

As for the Japanese, nothing has changed there. We do not trust them any more today than we did then.
Their ethics today can be layed bare by just witnessing their attitude to the taking of uncountable whales for scientlfic purposes.

Never forget.

 

[drgondog]

Well speaking from an Australian perspective, Japan would have untimately devoured Australia. After the war Australia lent towards the US and away from Britain for a big friend in a hostile world. We honoured the Anzus treaty by actively participating in any war that the US got itself into.
The actual wording of that treaty says that we will come to the aid of each other if attacked, but that was stretched by us to include any conflict, as a way of showing Australia's gratitude for the help we received from America that we owed our very existance to.

Nobody on this side of the pond forgets Aussie support in Korea and Viet Nam nor do the historically minded forget what the Aussies did in New Zealand in the Owen Stanley's to help secure New Guinea before the long push back..

My sons did a couple of joint exercises with the lads Down Under when they were active in Uncle Sam's Misguided Children - Hollywood Chapter. Tip of the hat to you

 

[syscom3]

But you haven't admitted it here. You are saying the US could of won the war by itself in Europe and in the Far East.

For the umpteenth time, I never said the US could have won alone in Europe.

Essential what you are saying is my Great Uncle (who was KIA in Burma during the war) died for nothing - you trying saying that to my grandmother bet you wouldn't have the balls. The war was a group effort all over the world by all of the Allies.

He died for the British empire, of which the CBI was not a strategic location in the battle for Japan.

The US provided the manufacturing power, the Russians the man power and the British and the Commonwealth the bases from which to strike from and much of the technical know how. I would like to of seen the US take on the Japanese, the Italians and the Germans without the Russian manpower and the British and Commonwealth bases from which to strike from -

Never said the US could take on the Germans, Russians or Italians all by ourselves. What more can I say.

But one fact is undebatable, in 1944, the US so completely dominated the fighting in the Pacific, it was a one sided affair.

The US needed its Allies almost as much as we needed the US.

Not in the Pacific.

 

[Hunter368]

To Syscom defense he never has said USA could of done by itself, at least I never heard him say that. But that still does not change everything else he has said.

Wow I am defending Syscom some what........weird. Remember this one Syscom, put it on your calender! LOL

 

[Udet]

Chris, Plan_D, Udet, Hunter, Syscom -

I have generally thought of the ultimate victory over the Axis by the Allies include very important milestones in which the flow of momentum in the war was reversed.. among those in my mind include Battle of Britain, Midway, El Alameiin, Guadalcanal and Stalingrad plus the Battle of the Atlantic.

My question earlier was "would Great Britain' defeat the German U-Boat campaign, or blunt it sufficiently to permit the necessary flow of resources to and from the British Isles as required to continue the war and keep pressure on Germany from two sides?

I respect all of your opinions on this subject - to me it currently is the elephant that sits in the corner of the room relative to fate of Europe.

This question is posed on the basis of US staying strictly neutral (i.e FDR does not win in 1940) with no Lend Lease or other support... I suppose it permits Japan to attack Britain and France in Pacific and be smart enough to 'respect' US neutrality..

What are your thoughts?

Regards,

Bill

Hello Dragon.

Just check this losses suffered by the Royal Navy before the entrance of the U.S. into the war -or, better said, before the end of 1941-; a few vessels included on the list were sunk on late December, when the U.S. was officially a combatant nation.

Even if the entrance of the U.S.A. into the war did not occur until December 1941, the U.S. Navy had been involved in convoy escort and U-boat harrassing duties for some months; not in the level and quantity to be observed after the declaration of war for sure.

This vessels were sunk either by U-boats, Luftwaffe bombers and dive bombers, Kriegsmarine surface units, enemy mines and even to italian action:

Battleships:

HMS Royal Oak.
HMS Barham.

Also HMS Malaya was severely damaged by German submarine action spending some months in a drydock; plus HMS Warspite, HMS Ramillies, HMS Nelson, HMS Valiant, HMS Queen Elizabeth, and HMS Prince of Wales, all of which took severe battle damage (all on "disabled list" for some time).

Battlecruiser:

HMS Hood

So if we consider the sinking of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse -lost to the Japanese- right after Pearl Harbor, before the end of 1941, nearly half of the Royal Navy´s battleships and battlecruisers had been either destroyed or withdrawn from service for some time due to severe battle damage. If we consider the fact HMS Howe and HMS Anson were not commissioned until 1942 -which is beyond the scope of this commentary-, then more than half of the RN´s battleships and battlecruisers had been uglily mistreated.

Carriers -all of them major carriers, and not jeep or escort carriers-:

HMS Glorious
HMS Courageous
HMS Ark Royal

Escort carrier:

HMS Audacity

Cruisers -heavy and light-

Calypso
York
Bonaventure
Gloucester
Fiji
Southampton
Calcutta
Galatea
Neptune
Latona

Destroyers

I do not have the exact number of destroyers lost before the end of 1941 but no less than 50 were lost in action during said period.

To put this into perspective, the U.S. Navy, all in all lost ~70 destroyers during the entire war. The Royal Navy alone had lost more than 50 between Sept 1, 1939 and the end of 1941.

Also several of the Royal Navy´s armed merchant ships had too been destroyed, and a large list of vessels sustained battle damage which too implied spending time in repairs. Last but not least, make mention of losses of merchant shipping due to U-boat action.

If this losses are not plain terrible to continue carrying on with a similar attrition rate then i declare myself bewildered. Yes, in the process they too inflicted high losses to the Kriegsmarine (Battle of Norway), but the price being paid was way too high. Also acknowledge is the Royal Navy´s skill and ability in U-boat hunting procedures.

Of course the presence of the U.S. Navy in the Atlantic implied a great relief to the brutal burden of the Admiralty. Talk about the ~2,700 Liberty Ships plus a number of the Victory Ships -don´t recall production numbers for this type- built at the dockyards of the U.S.A. which proved more than essential to maintain the supply lines between American and Europe.

No Lend-Lease, no U.S. support at all, would perhaps mean no convoys crossing the Atlantic...so the U-boats are not deployed to the U.S. East Coast, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean theathers. Where do all the wolves of Admiral Dönitz go instead?

 

[Gnomey]

He died for the British empire, of which the CBI was not a strategic location in the battle for Japan..

Try telling that to my grandmother... He still died for the British Empire for a cause which was just. The CBI was not as important as the Pacific but it tied down much more troops than the USA combated in the Pacific (~2/3 of the Japanese were in China).

But one fact is undebateable, in 1944, the US so completely dominated the fighting in the Pacific, it was a one sided affair.

But only in the Eastern Pacific (Papua New Guinea was mainly Australian).

Not in the Pacific

True but else where the Allies were needed and WW2 was a global war so the Allies were needed to defeat all of the axis.

 

[drgondog]

Hello Dragon.

Just check this losses suffered by the Royal Navy before the entrance of the U.S. into the war -or, better said, before the end of 1941-; a few vessels included on the list were sunk on late December, when the U.S. was officially a combatant nation.

Even if the entrance of the U.S.A. into the war did not occur until December 1941, the U.S. Navy had been involved in convoy escort and U-boat harrassing duties for some months; not in the level and quantity to be observed after the declaration of war for sure.

This vessels were sunk either by U-boats, Luftwaffe bombers and dive bombers, Kriegsmarine surface units, enemy mines and even to italian action:

Battleships:

HMS Royal Oak.
HMS Barham.

Also HMS Malaya was severely damaged by German submarine action spending some months in a drydock; plus HMS Warspite, HMS Ramillies, HMS Nelson, HMS Valiant, HMS Queen Elizabeth, and HMS Prince of Wales, all of which took severe battle damage (all on "disabled list" for some time).

Battlecruiser:

HMS Hood

So if we consider the sinking of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse -lost to the Japanese- right after Pearl Harbor, before the end of 1941, nearly half of the Royal Navy´s battleships and battlecruisers had been either destroyed or withdrawn from service for some time due to severe battle damage. If we consider the fact HMS Howe and HMS Anson were not commissioned until 1942 -which is beyond the scope of this commentary-, then more than half of the RN´s battleships and battlecruisers had been uglily mistreated.

Carriers -all of them major carriers, and not jeep or escort carriers-:

HMS Glorious
HMS Courageous
HMS Ark Royal

Escort carrier:

HMS Audacity

Cruisers -heavy and light-

Calypso
York
Bonaventure
Gloucester
Fiji
Southampton
Calcutta
Galatea
Neptune
Latona

Destroyers

I do not have the exact number of destroyers lost before the end of 1941 but no less than 50 were lost in action during said period.

To put this into perspective, the U.S. Navy, all in all lost ~70 destroyers during the entire war. The Royal Navy alone had lost more than 50 between Sept 1, 1939 and the end of 1941.

Also several of the Royal Navy´s armed merchant ships had too been destroyed, and a large list of vessels sustained battle damage which too implied spending time in repairs. Last but not least, make mention of losses of merchant shipping due to U-boat action.

If this losses are not plain terrible to continue carrying on with a similar attrition rate then i declare myself bewildered. Yes, in the process they too inflicted high losses to the Kriegsmarine (Battle of Norway), but the price being paid was way too high. Also acknowledge is the Royal Navy´s skill and ability in U-boat hunting procedures.

Of course the presence of the U.S. Navy in the Atlantic implied a great relief to the brutal burden of the Admiralty. Talk about the ~2,700 Liberty Ships plus a number of the Victory Ships -don´t recall production numbers for this type- built at the dockyards of the U.S.A. which proved more than essential to maintain the supply lines between American and Europe.

No Lend-Lease, no U.S. support at all, would perhaps mean no convoys crossing the Atlantic...so the U-boats are not deployed to the U.S. East Coast, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean theathers. Where do all the wolves of Admiral Dönitz go instead?

I had not understood the magnitude of RN losses prior to end of 1941. I also have no grasp of ability of British industry to replace transports and tankers - much less carriers and destroyers. Was there a 'point of no return'?

Random question - Back in the day, one of my 'intellectual' exercises was to try to estimate the population of Moscow based on estimates of 2-4 days shelf life of fresh food and look at what the surface net could sustain (un interrupted).

Does anybody know what the minimum import requirements for food was to keep British citizens at 1000-1100 calries per day?

In my own meanderings about the Battle of the Atlantic I was trying to understand how the RN could a.) control the Med and b.) keep shipping lanes open from Suez for Middle East oil and prevent a severe and effective blockade around Britain itself from any direction - but specifically the south.

Further, what would our neutrality do at the Panama Canal re: RN mobility to and from PTO to attempt to regain control of Indonesia oil.

Regards,

Bill

 

[Bernhart]

now i remember why i stopped reading this thread

 

[syscom3]

Gnomey, let me rephrase it so you can understand:

The CBI was of vital importance for the British Empire.

But just because it was of vital significance to the brits, it didn't mean it had strategic military significance at all.

The theater declined in significance to the US towards the end of 1943 becoming irrelevant after mid 1944.

In 1944, Churchill suggested the upcoming fall offensive in the Pacific be canceled and an invasion of Indochina be done instead (through Burma of course). FDR, Macarthur, Marshall, Nimitz and King all chuckled and thanked him for his insight and put the plans in the circular file.

By the fall of 1944, it didn't matter what happened there as the war was now in the Japanese home waters.